The past decade has witnessed a seismic shift in how societies consume information. Artificial intelligence and algorithmic feeds now dominate the attention economy, turning smartphones into the primary window to the world. In the United Kingdom, average adult screen time has leapt from just over an hour in 2015 to more than three hours today, while youths routinely spend five hours daily on mobile apps. This surge fuels a new kind of political mobilisation where narratives can be amplified or suppressed at a scale unimaginable before the rise of bots and machine-learning targeting.
Big tech and the far-right: a coordinated influence campaign
Election cycles in the United States, the United Kingdom and Latin America have shown how platform-based advertising can tilt outcomes. The 2016 Trump campaign, the 2019 Brexit vote and subsequent Boris Johnson victory all relied on hyper-targeted social-media ads that reached millions with tailored messages. Shadowy firms such as Cambridge Analytica, alongside state-backed bot networks from Russia, Israel and the United Arab Emirates, have refined disinformation tactics that weaponise fear of immigration, cultural change and climate policy. Unlike the radio-driven fascist waves of the 1930s, today’s right-wing surge is engineered from within the digital ecosystem, where billionaire-owned platforms and influencer accounts dictate which stories dominate.
Australia’s battle over a live execution feed
In December, the United States scheduled the execution of former army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan, convicted of a 2009 mass shooting at a Texas base. Australian officials, fearing the graphic footage could stream on Facebook and Instagram, entered urgent talks with Meta’s global safety chief. Communications Minister Anika Wells publicly urged the company to block any live broadcast, emphasizing a duty of care to protect citizens from traumatic content. While the federal government pressed Meta, opposition voices like Pauline Hanson argued the decision should rest with individual choice, framing the issue as a matter of free speech. The debate underscores how national regulators now must negotiate directly with big tech to enforce content standards across borders.
Vermont’s governor race: AI, data centers and surveillance cameras
During the 2026 Vermont gubernatorial campaign, Democrat Amanda Janoo made a stark declaration against “Flock” license-plate readers, calling for a ban on the AI-powered cameras used by law enforcement. Her platform also proposes the state adopt the “strongest public standards for artificial intelligence,” including independent testing, human oversight and bans on mass-surveillance AI. In contrast, Republican incumbent Phil Scott argues regulation should be left to the federal government, warning that a patchwork of state rules could hinder innovation. Scott’s administration has already piloted AI tools from Anthropic to detect cybersecurity weaknesses, illustrating a pragmatic embrace of the technology while urging national coordination.
These three storylines—global political manipulation, a contested livestream of state-sanctioned violence, and a state-level fight over AI governance—reveal a common thread: the growing power of platform owners to shape public perception and policy. As governments grapple with content moderation, surveillance technology, and the ethics of AI, the balance between security, liberty and commercial interest remains in flux. The alliance between big tech and political actors, whether overt or covert, is redefining the rules of engagement in democracies worldwide.
